Grueber v. Lindenmeier

• Decision Date: 29 November 1889
• Citation: 42 Minn. 99
• Parties: FREDERICK GRUEBER and Wife <I>vs.</I> JOHN HENRY LINDENMEIER and others.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 99

42 Minn. 99

FREDERICK GRUEBER and Wifevs.

JOHN HENRY LINDENMEIER and others.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

November 29, 1889.

Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Scott county, Edson, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. "Exhibit E" mentioned in the opinion is as follows:

"This indenture, made the 28th day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty, between John H. Lindenmeier, Jr., and Dorothea Magdalena Grueber, of the town of Hancock, county of Carver, and state of Minnesota, parties of the first part, and Frederick Grueber and Cathrina Margeret Grueber, of same place, parties of the second part, witnesseth: That the said parties of the second part are to have the free use and privilege — that is to say, being boss — of a certain real estate lying and being in the county of Carver and state of Minnesota, deeded and executed on the 28th day of January, A. D. 1880, by the parties of the second part to the said parties of the first part, during their natural lives; and also the parties of the first part further bind themselves to stay and work the said real estate with the parties of the second part; and it is further agreed upon that if either of the parties of the first part should die, and leave a child or children, that child or children must have the said real estate after the death of both parents. In testimony whereof, the said parties of the first part have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year above written." (Duly executed, attested, and acknowledged.)

Odell & Steidl, for appellants.

Chas. G. Hinds, for respondents.

MITCHELL, J.

This was an action to recover damages for the wrongful conversion of a quantity of grain. Of course, the ownership of a crop may be in one person, and the ownership of the land on which it was raised in another; but as in this case, under the evidence, the right to the grain depends upon and must follow the right to the land, the whole case turns upon the construction to be given to the instrument, Exhibit E, in connection with the deed, Exhibit C. In January, 1880, the plaintiff Frederick was the owner of a farm of some 140 acres, upon which he and his wife and co-plaintiff, Cathrina, resided. They had an only child, the defendant, Dorothea, who was betrothed to the defendant John Henry, to whom she was married two weeks afterwards. The plaintiffs executed to these two defendants, their daughter and prospective son-in-law, a conveyance (Exhibit C) of the farm, which was a warranty deed in the usual form, and with full covenants of title. This deed was not wholly a voluntary conveyance, inasmuch as, in consideration of it, the plaintiff Frederick was released from a debt which he owed to the father of the defendant John Henry, and also from a small claim in favor of John Henry himself, for work. But these were evidently not in amount anything like the full value of the farm, or the only consideration for the conveyance, which was undoubtedly intended as a provision for the young people, in view of their contemplated marriage. At the same time, and as a part of the same transaction, the daughter and contemplated son-in-law executed back to the old people the instrument, Exhibit E, which was witnessed and acknowledged as...